Determinants of Knowledge Sharing in A Public Sector Organization

Journal of Knowledge Management
Determinants of knowledge sharing in a public sector organization

Angela Titi Amayah
Article information:
To cite this document:
Angela Titi Amayah, (2013),"Determinants of knowledge sharing in a public sector organization", Journal of Knowledge Management, Vol.
17 Iss 3 pp. 454 - 471
Permanent link to this document:
http://dx.doi.org/10.1108/JKM-11-2012-0369
Downloaded on: 17 January 2015, At: 19:15 (PT)
References: this document contains references to 80 other documents.
To copy this document: permissions@emeraldinsight.com
The fulltext of this document has been downloaded 1820 times since 2013*
Users who downloaded this article also downloaded:

Downloaded by SEGi International Bhd At 19:15 17 January 2015 (PT)
Gian Casimir, Karen Lee, Mark Loon, (2012),"Knowledge sharing: influences of trust, commitment and cost", Journal of Knowledge
Management, Vol. 16 Iss 5 pp. 740-753 http://dx.doi.org/10.1108/13673271211262781
Adel Ismail Al-Alawi, Nayla Yousif Al-Marzooqi, Yasmeen Fraidoon Mohammed, (2007),"Organizational culture and knowledge sharing:
critical success factors", Journal of Knowledge Management, Vol. 11 Iss 2 pp. 22-42 http://dx.doi.org/10.1108/13673270710738898
J. Scott Holste, Dail Fields, (2010),"Trust and tacit knowledge sharing and use", Journal of Knowledge Management, Vol. 14 Iss 1 pp.
128-140 http://dx.doi.org/10.1108/13673271011015615
Access to this document was granted through an Emerald subscription provided by 540740 []
For Authors
If you would like to write for this, or any other Emerald publication, then please use our Emerald for Authors service information about
how to choose which publication to write for and submission guidelines are available for all. Please visit www.emeraldinsight.com/
authors for more information.
About Emerald www.emeraldinsight.com

Emerald is a global publisher linking research and practice to the benefit of society. The company manages a portfolio of more than
290 journals and over 2,350 books and book series volumes, as well as providing an extensive range of online products and additional
customer resources and services.
Emerald is both COUNTER 4 and TRANSFER compliant. The organization is a partner of the Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE) and
also works with Portico and the LOCKSS initiative for digital archive preservation.
*Related content and download information correct at time of download.
Determinants of knowledge sharing in a

public sector organization
Angela Titi Amayah
Abstract
Purpose The purpose of this paper is to investigate the factors that affect knowledge sharing in a
public sector organization.
Design/methodology/approach The paper is based on quantitative research. The data were
gathered through questionnaires and analyzed using multiple regression.
Angela Titi Amayah is

based at SUNY Empire
State College, Rochester,
New York, USA.
Findings Community-related considerations, normative considerations and personal benefits were

three motivators found to have a unique contribution to the variance in knowledge sharing. The following
enablers had a significant main effect on knowledge sharing: social interaction, rewards, and
organizational support. Two barriers, degree of courage and degree of empathy, which measured
organizational climate, were found to have a significant main effect on knowledge sharing. The
interaction of normative consideration with social interaction, personal benefit with organizational
support, and normative considerations with degree of courage, had a moderating effect on the
relationship between motivating factors and knowledge sharing.
Research limitations/implications The study was conducted in a single public sector organization,
which limits the generalizability of the findings to other settings. Another limitation is that attitudes toward
knowledge sharing, and knowledge-sharing behaviors, vary across cultures. Finally, self-reported data
are subject to response bias.
Practical implications Identifying factors that influence knowledge sharing could help practitioners
create a knowledge-sharing culture that is needed to support knowledge sharing and knowledge
management within public sector organizations.
Originality/value This empirical study will contribute to the theoretical knowledge on knowledge
sharing in the public sector, which has been neglected in knowledge-sharing research.
Keywords Public sector organizations, Knowledge management, Knowledge sharing,
Motivational factors, Enablers, Barriers
Paper type Research paper
Introduction
Received 30 November 2012

Revised 6 February 2013
14 March 2013
29 March 2013
Accepted 4 April 2013
PAGE 454
In the knowledge-based economy, knowledge sharing is increasingly viewed as critical to

organizational effectiveness (Quigley et al., 2007). It is argued that knowledge sharing
among employees significantly impacts the performance of both public and private sector
organizations (Silvi and Cuganesan, 2006). As a result, knowledge sharing has gained
importance in organizations seeking to gain a competitive edge (Felin and Hesterly, 2007).
However, knowledge sharing is challenging in organizations for two reasons. First,
employees tacit knowledge, by its very nature, is difficult to transfer. Second, knowledge
sharing is typically voluntary (Lin et al., 2008). Organizations can manage knowledge
resources more effectively only if employees are willing to share their knowledge with
colleagues. To facilitate knowledge sharing among public employees and across agencies,
it is essential to understand the factors influencing employees willingness to share
knowledge. Accordingly, there is a significant amount of research on factors that may
influence knowledge sharing in organizations. However, most research on knowledge
sharing has been conducted in private sector organizations (e.g. Hara and Hew, 2007; Land
JOURNAL OF KNOWLEDGE MANAGEMENT
VOL. 17 NO. 3 2013, pp. 454-471, Q Emerald Group Publishing Limited, ISSN 1367-3270
DOI 10.1108/JKM-11-2012-0369
et al., 2009; Li et al., 2010) or among students (e.g. Kwok and Gao, 2005). Few studies focus
on knowledge sharing in the public sector (Sandhu et al., 2011; Yusof et al., 2012).
This article makes two key contributions. First, there is little research on knowledge sharing in
public sector organizations. In the past 20 years, significant changes have occurred in the
public sector, moving from a traditional, bureaucratic approach to a more managerial one
(Sandhu et al., 2011). Today, public organizations are also known as knowledge-based
organizations (Willem and Buelens, 2007). Thus, knowledge is as critical a resource to public
sector organizations as it is to private sector firms (Siong et al., 2011; Willem and Buelens,
2007). Public organizations too have to contend with greater competition for resources and
competition from alternative services (Luen and Al-Hawamdeh, 2001). Additionally,
improving knowledge sharing processes would help ensure employees benefit as much
as possible from senior employees knowledge and experience before they retire. Second,
this study extends the literature on the factors that affect informal knowledge sharing. The
study not only examines factors that encourage knowledge sharing, but also those that
negatively influence employees willingness to share knowledge in a public sector
organization.
The next section is a summary of previous research on knowledge sharing and the factors
that influence individuals willingness to share, with specific emphasis on the public sector.
Next, the methodology is discussed, including the population and data analysis. Multiple
regression was used to analyze the data, generating a model showing the influence of
several factors on knowledge sharing. The findings and discussion sections report on this
analysis. Finally, the paper offers conclusions and recommendations for practice and further
research.
Previous research
Knowledge sharing
Knowledge and information are not clearly distinguished in the literature. According to
Nonaka (1994), information, defined as a flow of messages (p. 15), differs from
knowledge, an organized flow of information. However, the terms knowledge and
information are most often considered to be interchangeable in the literature. Bartol and
Srivastava (2002) and Wang and Noe (2010) suggest that there is little practical value in
distinguishing between knowledge and information in knowledge sharing research.
Therefore, in this study knowledge is understood as information processed by
individuals including ideas, facts, expertise, and judgments relevant for individual, team,
and organizational performance (Wang and Noe, 2010, p. 117). Knowledge sharing refers
to the provision of task information and know-how to help others and to collaborate with
others to solve problems, develop new ideas, or implement policies or procedures (Wang
and Noe, 2010, p. 117).
While knowledge is shared through face-to-face interactions, it can also be shared through
such channels as telephones or e-mail (Truran, 1998). According to Von Krogh et al. (2000),
knowledge is shared informally even in highly structured organizations. Employees often
share knowledge unconsciously through informal interactions (Swap et al., 2001; Taminiau
et al., 2009). This implies that knowledge can be shared without the specific intention to do
so. Examples of knowledge sharing include conversations over a cup of coffee and other
exchanges with the purpose of helping colleagues get something done better and in a more
efficient manner.
Effective knowledge sharing is challenging because

employees cannot be compelled to do it.
VOL. 17 NO. 3 2013 JOURNAL OF KNOWLEDGE MANAGEMENT PAGE 455
A shared vision should therefore influence the quantity of

knowledge shared.
Knowledge sharing in public sector organizations
Prior study of knowledge sharing has placed emphasis on similarities and differences
between private and public sector organizations, and factors that affect knowledge sharing.
Liebowitz and Chen (2003), for instance, found that it is more difficult to share knowledge in
public sector organizations because most people associate knowledge with power, and
their promotion opportunities. Other studies have focused on some of the factors that affect
knowledge sharing in the public sector. For instance, Seba et al. (2012) found that
organizational structure, leadership, time allocation, and trust could be barriers to
knowledge sharing in the Dubai police force. In a study of 50 private sector organizations,
Lin (2007) found that motivational factors such as reciprocal benefits, knowledge
self-efficacy, and enjoyment in helping others significantly affect employee knowledge
sharing attitudes and intentions. Most knowledge sharing studies, however, are conducted
in private sector organizations. Thus, there is a growing interest for further research on
knowledge sharing in the public sector.
Public sector organizations differ from private organizations in a number of ways (Milner,
2000). First, organizational goals in public organizations are typically more difficult to
measure and more conflicting than in private organizations, and they are affected differently
by political influences (Pandey and Wright, 2006). Second, public organizations can be very
different from one another, based on ownership of the organization, funding, and control
(Willem and Buelens, 2007). Other differences include fragmented authority and less
incentive for efficiency (Heffron, 1989).
Factors affecting knowledge sharing
Effective knowledge sharing is challenging because employees cannot be compelled to do
it. Therefore it is important to understand the factors that affect employees willingness to
share. Several models presenting factors that affect knowledge sharing have been tested in
a variety of organizational settings. Some of the variables investigated were analyzed at the
individual level, while others examined variables at the team or community level. For
instance, Kim and Lee (2006) examined the impact of organizational structure,
organizational culture, and information technology on employee knowledge sharing
capabilities. Riege (2005) suggested three-dozen barriers to knowledge sharing, including
individual barriers such as formal power and age and gender differences, potential
organizational barriers, and potential technology barriers. Ardichvili (2008) proposed that
the following factors affect individuals willingness to share knowledge:
B
motivation factors (personal benefits, community-related considerations, and normative

considerations);
barriers (interpersonal, procedural, technological, cultural); and
enablers (supportive corporate culture, trust, tools).
Few of those factors have been tested empirically. Furthermore, the empirical research
suggests a lack of consensus on the key determinants of knowledge sharing.
Research design
This article draws on Ardichvilis (2008) proposed model to identify some determinants of
knowledge sharing among employees in public sector organizations. Ardichvili (2008)
suggested that motivational factors, enablers, and barriers influence knowledge sharing.
PAGE 456 JOURNAL OF KNOWLEDGE MANAGEMENT VOL. 17 NO. 3 2013
Motivational factors
Motivation is a necessary prerequisite for knowledge sharing (e.g. Ardichvili, 2008; Zboralski
et al., 2006). Because knowledge resides within individuals, knowledge cannot be shared
effectively if individuals are not motivated to share it. Therefore, it is important to gain a better
understanding of the factors that motivate knowledge sharing. Three categories of
motivating factors have an impact on an individuals willingness to share knowledge with
other employees: personal benefits, community-related considerations, and normative
considerations.
Individuals may be motivated to share knowledge with others because they expect
knowledge sharing to be advantageous to them (Hall, 2001). Personal benefits from
knowledge sharing identified in the literature include:
B
status and career advancement;
a better professional reputation;
emotional benefits; and
intellectual benefits.
Another motivator, community-related considerations, refers to the moral obligation that

individuals feel to advance or benefit others in their network. Ardichvilis (2008) framework
identified three community-related considerations that may influence ones motivation to
share knowledge:
1. sharing knowledge to establish ties with people one collaborates with;
2. sharing knowledge as a means to build a stronger community; and
3. sharing knowledge to strengthen ones position in a community.
Normative considerations, which refer to organizational norms to which employees are
expected to adhere, take into account values and cultural norms that may lead an individual
to share his or her knowledge. Values affect goals, attitudes, and behaviors. Individuals who
have common values and a shared vision are likely to share knowledge (Alavi et al., 2006;
Chiu et al., 2006). A shared vision should therefore influence the quantity of knowledge
shared. The following research question is proposed:
RQ1. What is the relative and unique contribution of motivational factors (personal
benefits, community-related considerations, and normative considerations) on
explaining the variance in knowledge sharing in a public sector organization?
Enablers
Besides the three aforementioned categories of motivational factors, willingness to share
knowledge can be further encouraged by a number of enablers. Enablers of knowledge
sharing include organizational culture, social capital, and trust. Once an individual is
motivated to participate in knowledge sharing activities, enablers facilitate the actual
provision of information.
Several studies have identified a link between organizational climate and knowledge sharing
(e.g. Janz and Prasarnphanich, 2003). Organizational climate determines values, beliefs,
and work systems that encourage or hinder both learning and knowledge sharing (Janz and
Prasarnphanich, 2003). If the organizational climate is not conducive to knowledge sharing,
then individuals will not be willing to engage in such behaviors. A climate of sharing will
Organizational support also had a moderating effect of

personal benefits on knowledge sharing.
influence employees attitudes toward knowledge sharing (Zboralski et al., 2004, Yang,
2007). An open and caring climate is also important to knowledge management, as it
encourages interaction among individuals, which facilitates knowledge sharing (Alavi et al.,
2006; Janz and Prasarnphanich, 2003). Organizational climate may also act as barrier to
knowledge sharing.
Another factor that enables knowledge sharing is trust. For tacit knowledge to be transferred
successfully there must be trust and mutual understanding (e.g. Ardichvili, 2008; Ardichvili
et al., 2003). In their study of factors that influence knowledge sharing, Ardichvili et al. (2003)
found that participants will be more inclined to use the knowledge made available if they
trust it to be a reliable and objective source of information. Thus, trust leads to greater
openness between individuals (Garavan et al., 2007), encourages sharing of knowledge
and willingness to collaborate with others (Liao, 2006; Sharratt and Usoro, 2003).
Two dimensions of social capital relevant to knowledge sharing are structural capital and
social interaction. The structural dimension of social capital manifests itself in several ways,
including through the norm of reciprocity. Reciprocity refers to the sharing of knowledge that
is mutual and that both parties perceive as fair (Chiu et al., 2006). While Chiu et al. (2006)
identified a positive relationship between norm of reciprocity and knowledge sharing,
McLure Wasko and Faraj (2005) found a negative relationship between the two. Social
interaction was found to influence significantly the extent to which knowledge sharing
happens (Chiu et al., 2006; Inkpen and Tsang, 2005; Nahapiet and Ghoshal, 1998). This is
because social interaction enables individuals to increase the depth, breadth, and efficiency
of the knowledge they share with one another. Thus, social capital may be considered a
contributing factor to ones willingness to share knowledge. The following research question
is proposed:
RQ2. What is the relative and unique contribution of enablers (organizational climate,
trust, social capital) on explaining the variance in knowledge sharing in a public
sector organization?
Barriers
In spite of their motivation to share knowledge and enabling factors facilitating such
exchange, employees might also be faced with organizational barriers preventing the
diffusion of knowledge. Barriers that may prevent employees from sharing knowledge with
colleagues include organizational climate and organizational structure. When barriers can
be removed and knowledge sharing promoted, employees can more effectively disseminate
and manage their knowledge.
The climate in which individuals work has an impact on knowledge sharing (Zarraga and
Bonache, 2003). For instance, in organizations where individual competition is emphasized,
employees will not be likely to share knowledge with others at work (e.g. Schepers and van
den Berg, 2007; Willem and Scarbrough, 2006). The construct of organizational climate has
numerous dimensions. To investigate organizational climate as barriers to knowledge
sharing, Zarraga and Bonache (2003) used two dimensions:
1. degree of active empathy and lenience in judgment; and
2. degree of courage.
Active empathy and lenience in judgment is defined as offering judgments and opinions of
the actions or ideas, but with clemency (Zarraga and Bonache, 2003, p. 1231). Degree of
courage refers to individuals freedom to express their opinion without fear. Lack of empathy
and lack of courage to express oneself can act as a barrier to knowledge sharing.
According to Kim and Lee (2006), few studies have investigated how organizational
structure impacts knowledge sharing in public and private sector organizations. Sharratt
and Usoro (2003), found that organizations with a centralized, bureaucratic management
style can stifle the creation of new knowledge, whereas a flexible decentralized
organizational structure encourages knowledge-sharing, particularly of knowledge that is
more tacit in nature (p. 189). Similarly, Tsai (2002) found that centralization could reduce
individuals interest in sharing knowledge with other units within an organization. Conversely,
knowledge sharing will increase among organizational units when formalization is low in the
organization structure (Lin, 2008). Thus, organizational structure may have an impact on
knowledge sharing. This leads to the following exploratory research question:
RQ3. What is the relative and unique contribution of barriers (organizational climate and
organizational structure) on explaining the variance in knowledge sharing in a
public sector organization?
In their review of the literature on knowledge sharing in public organizations, Yang and
Maxwell (2012) identified a number of questions that are yet to be investigated in empirical
research. This includes whether certain factors are more important than others in the
framework of intra-organizational information sharing. Yang and Maxwell (2012) also
suggested that enablers, motivators, and barriers can affect each other. According to
Heppner et al. (2008), examining [. . .] moderating effects among variables are two
common research strategies for understanding more complex relationships among
variables (pp. 250-1). For instance, trust may have a moderating effect on workplace
behaviors (Dirks and Ferrin, 2001). Additionally, organizational climate can have a
moderating effect on knowledge sharing (e.g. van den Hooff and de Ridder, 2004), and the
level of social capital may influence the relationship between ones willingness to share
knowledge and knowledge sharing behaviors (Cabrera and Cabrera, 2005). Therefore, it is
proposed in the current study that enablers may moderate the relationship between
motivators and knowledge sharing. Previous research showed that organizational climate (Li
et al., 2010) and organizational structure (Du et al., 2007; Yang and Maxwell, 2012)
influenced knowledge sharing behavior. Based on prior research, the moderating effect
barriers may have on knowledge sharing will also be investigated. However, because of the
weak evidence of the effect of intrinsic factors such as degree of empathy (McLure Wasko
and Faraj, 2005), the moderating role of the degree of empathy will not be investigated. The
following research question ensues:
RQ4. What is the moderating effect of enablers and barriers on the relationship between
motivators and knowledge sharing in a public sector community of practice?
Figure 1 summarizes the relationships between motivators, enablers, barriers, and
knowledge sharing.
Figure 1 The research model
Method
This article proposes a model of the factors that affect knowledge sharing in a public sector
organization. A questionnaire was used to collect data from the employees.
Questionnaire design
Questionnaires are an efficient way to collect data as they allow an opportunity to generate a
larger sample of respondents and can be used for statistical analysis (Snow and Thomas,
1994). A 72-item questionnaire with a seven-point Likert type scale was used to collect data
(1 strongly disagree; 7 strongly agree). Determinants of knowledge sharing in the
proposed model include the following constructs:
B
motivators (personal benefits, community-related considerations, and normative

considerations);
enablers (organizational culture, trust, and social capital); and
barriers (organizational climate, and organizational structure).
All constructs were measured using multiple items. The variables tested in this study are
defined in Table I.
Table I Source of measurement items

Constructs
Source
Definition
Knowledge sharing activities
Kim and Lee (2006)
Task information and know-how to help others and to

collaborate with others to solve problems, develop new ideas,
or implement policies or procedures
Community-related considerations
Chiu et al. (2006)
A knowledge contributors judgment of likely consequences

that his or her knowledge sharing behavior will produce (p.
1876) to a community
Personal benefits
Chiu et al. (2006)
Knowledge contributors judgment of likely consequences

that his or her knowledge sharing behavior will produce to him
or herself (p. 1876)
Normative considerations
Levin et al. (2002)
Shared values and vision, and norms
Rewards
Janz and Prasarnphanich (2003)
A measure of how well the organization recognizes

employee performance with rewards (p. 360).
Organizational support
Support is a measure of the organizations interest in the

welfare of the employee (p. 360)
Trust
Chiu et al. (2006)
A set of specific beliefs dealing primarily with the integrity,

benevolence, and ability of another party (p. 1877)
Social interaction
Chiu et al. (2006)
Social interaction ties represent the strength of the

relationships, and the amount of time spent, and
communication frequency among members of virtual
communities (pp. 1876-7)
Reciprocity
Chiu et al. (2006)
Actions that are contingent on rewarding reactions from

others and that cease when these expected reactions are not
forthcoming (p. 1877)
Degree of courage
Zarraga and Bonache (2003)
An individuals ability to express his or her opinions without

fear
Degree of empathy
Feeling of freedom in individuals, leading to share knowledge

and experiences with others
Centralization
Kim and Lee (2006)
Degree to which power and authority are concentrated at the

organizations higher levels (p. 373)
Formalization
Kim and Lee (2006)
The degree to which are manifest in written documents

regarding procedures, job descriptions, regulations, and
policy manuals (p. 374)
Measurement items were adapted from the literature, with minor modifications to ensure
contextual consistency. Each variable was investigated using previously validated
subscales. Cronbachs a reliability estimates for the variables can be found in Table II.
The questionnaire consisted of two parts. In the first part, items addressed factors
influencing ones willingness to share knowledge. Questionnaire items pertaining to personal
benefits asked the participants agreement or disagreement with statements such as
Sharing my knowledge will help me to make friends with coworkers or Sharing my
knowledge will strengthen the tie between coworkers in my department and me. The
second part gathered demographics information about the respondents, such as age, years
of employment at the public institution, gender, and job title. Negative items were included to
check for consistency of response. The instrument was piloted with individuals from the
research population.
Data collection procedures
The questionnaires were e-mailed to 1,738 civil service employees at a mid-size public
academic institution in the Midwest. They represent a large number of job groups, from
professional to service/maintenance, which makes them representative of the workforce in
other public organizations. Participants were sent one e-mail reminder, ten days after the first
request. The majority of the respondents (314) completed the survey after the first e-mail
request. The remaining 147 questionnaires were received after the follow up e-mail. Of the
1,738 individuals who were e-mailed the questionnaire, 461 returned completed
questionnaires, resulting in a 26.5 percent response rate. However, 22 returned
questionnaires were only half complete and, therefore, were discarded leaving 439
questionnaires to be analyzed. As a result, the response rate for usable questionnaires was
reduced to 25.3 percent.
The respondents profiles can be found in Table III. The majority of civil service employees
were over 46 years old (65 percent), females (73.8 percent), and held a Bachelors degree
(45.6 percent). Most respondents reported having been employed by the institution for over
21 years (27.1 percent), followed by relatively recent hires less than five years (22.8
percent).
To determine whether there was non-response error, early respondents were compared to
late respondents on two key variables i.e. knowledge sharing and trust (Table IV) using
an independent t-test (Lindner et al., 2001). Early respondents were those individuals who
completed the questionnaire within the deadline after receiving the first e-mail. Individuals
who responded to the subsequent e-mail were labeled late responders. The independent
sample t-test analysis indicated that there was no statistically significant difference between
the mean of the later respondents and that of early respondents on the subscale knowledge
Table II Cronbachs a reliability estimates
Factors
Constructs
Source
Cronbachs a
Knowledge sharing
Knowledge sharing activities
Kim and Lee (2006)
0.89
Motivators
Community related considerations

Personal benefits
Normative considerations
Chiu et al. (2006)

Chiu et al. (2006)
Levin et al. (2002)
0.91
0.91
0.82
Enablers
Rewards
Organizational support
Trust
Social interaction
Reciprocity

Chiu et al. (2006)
Chiu et al. (2006)
Chiu et al. (2006)
0.75
0.61
0.89
0.90
0.88
Barriers
Degree of courage
Degree of empathy
Centralization
Formalization

Kim and Lee (2006)
Kim and Lee (2006)
0.75
0.75
0.85
0.75
Table III Profiles of respondents
Demographic characteristics
Number of responses
Percentage
Gender
Male
Female
No response
109
324
6
24.8
73.8
1.4
Age
18-25
26-35
36-45
46-55
56 and up
No response
11
49
89
178
109
3
2.5
11.2
20.3
40.5
24.8
0.7
Education level
Less than high school
High school
Some college
Bachelors degree
Masters degree
Doctorate
No response
1
15
144
200
72
5
2
0.2
3.4
32.8
45.6
16.4
1.1
0.5
Work experience
Less than five years
16-20 years
Over 21 years
No response
100
60
119
160
27.1
13.7
27.1
36.4
Job titles
Clerks
Office managers
Accountants
Office support specialists
Office administrators
No response
Others
46
39
36
24
24
75
195
10.48
8.88
8.20
5.47
5.47
17.08
44.42
Table IV Comparison of later and early respondents for non-response error

Levenes test for
equality of
variances
F
Sig.
df
t-test for equality of means

Sig. (two-tailed)
Mean difference
SE difference
KSA
Equal variances assumed
Equal variance not assumed
0.494
0.482
20.465
20.465
437
430.273
0.642
0.642
20.113
20.113
0.244
0.244
Trust
Equal variances assumed
Equal variance not assumed
2.904
0.089
0.663
0.663
437
429.201
0.508
0.508
0.362
0.362
0.546
0.546
sharing activities (KSA), t437 20:465, p 0:642 (two-tailed). The results are
comparable for trust, the other variable selected for this analysis.
Data analysis
The model shown in Figure 1 was analyzed using regression. According to McNabb (2004),
although inferential statistics should only be used when data are collected from a sample,
inferential statistics may still be used to analyze population data. Therefore, inferential
statistical methods were used to answer the research questions. RQ1-RQ3 sought to identify
the relative contribution of three categories of independent variables (motivators, enablers,

and barriers) in explaining the variance in knowledge sharing. RQ4 investigated the
moderating effect of enablers and barriers on the relationship between motivators and
knowledge sharing. A stepwise regression analysis was performed to investigate RQ1-RQ3.
The moderating effect of enablers and barriers on motivational factors was analyzed using
multiple regression.
Results
All motivators, community-related considerations (b 0:328, p , 0:001), normative

considerations (b 0:967, p , 0:001), and personal benefits (b 20:312, p , 0:01),
significantly contributed to the variance in knowledge sharing (adjusted R 2 0:425). All
three motivating factors could explain up to 42.5 percent of the total variance in knowledge
sharing. The best predictor of knowledge sharing was community-related considerations,
which alone explained 39 percent of the variance in knowledge sharing (adjusted
R 2 0:396). Personal benefits negative b value suggests that willingness to share
knowledge decreases as personal benefits increase.
Three enabling factors i.e. social interaction (b 0:585, p , 0:001), rewards
(b 20:090, p , 0:05), and organizational support (b 20:563, p , 0:01), had a
significant main effect on the variance in knowledge sharing. Reciprocity was included in
the model although it did not have a significant main effect on knowledge sharing
(b 20:008, p . 0:05). These three enablers together could explain 1.3 percent of the total
variance in knowledge sharing (DR 2 0:058). Surprisingly, the variable trust was
excluded from the model. Both dimensions of organizational climate, rewards and
organizational support, were negatively related to knowledge sharing. Degree of empathy
(b 0:345, p , 0:001), and degree of courage (b 0:337, p , 0:05) significantly
contributed to the variance in knowledge sharing. Those two barriers together could
explain 7 percent of the total variance in knowledge sharing (DR 2 0:073). The
organizational structure variables, centralization and formalization, were not included in
the model.
The interaction term normative considerations social interaction (b 20:869,
p , 0:001) was significant in predicting ones willingness to engage in knowledge sharing
activities. Similarly, the interaction terms personal benefits organizational support
(b 0:839, p , 0:01), and normative considerations degree of courage (b 20:487,
p , 0:05), had a significant moderating effect on the relationship between motivators and
knowledge sharing activities. The results of the regression analysis can be found in Table V.
A model generated by the stepwise regression analysis, which was statistically significant
(p 0:036), explained 58 percent of the variance in knowledge sharing (adjusted
R 2 0:583). This suggests that the variables included in the model are good at predicting
knowledge sharing activities (Figure 2).
Discussion
This research has proposed a model of the factors that affect knowledge sharing in a public
sector organization. Contrary to what was expected, personal benefits were negatively
related to knowledge sharing. Personal benefits negative b value suggests that willingness
to share knowledge decreases as personal benefits increase. This finding is not consistent
with most of the knowledge sharing literature (e.g. Ardichvili, 2008; Chiu et al., 2006; McLure
Wasko and Faraj, 2005). A possible explanation for this result could be that in some cases
the cost of sharing knowledge might outweigh the personal benefits. For instance,
individuals willing to share knowledge would lose their unique value to organizations that
value expertise but not mentoring or assisting others (Bock et al., 2005). Thus, the lack of
sufficient personal outcome could constitute a barrier to knowledge sharing. This finding
also indicates that department managers at this public institution should promote a culture
that encourages civil service employees to share their knowledge with others in their units or
departments.
Table V Determinants of knowledge sharing

Variables
Main effects
Motivational factors
Community related considerations
Normative considerations (NC)
Personal benefits (PB)
Block 1
Enablers
Social interaction (SOCI)
Reciprocity
Rewards
Support (SUP)
Block 2
Barriers
Degree of empathy
Degree of courage
Block 3
Interaction effects
NC SOCI
PB SUP
NC COUR
Block 4
Regression model
Adjusted R 2
Sig. F change
0.328***
0.967***
20.312**
0.655
0.425
0.028
0.701
0.483
0.001
0.752
0.556
0.016
0.771
0.583
0.036
0.585***
20.008
20.090*
20.563**
0.345***
0.337*
20.869***
0.839**
20.487*
Notes: *p , 0:05; **p , 0:01; ***p , 0:001
Reciprocity was not statistically significant in predicting the variance of knowledge sharing.
Although not consistent with most of the literature, this result supports Huang et al.s (2008)
finding. According to Huang et al. (2008), an anticipated reciprocal relationship does not
significantly influence ones willingness to share knowledge. In their study, knowledge was
shared to make work more effective, not because individuals expected the same in return.
The results from the regression analysis indicated a statistically significant negative
relationship between knowledge sharing and both dimensions of organizational climate,
i.e. rewards and organizational support. This finding is consistent with prior research. Bock
and Kim (2002) found that expected rewards were negatively related to knowledge sharing.
Rewards negative b value might be explained by the fact that rewards can strain the
relationship between those who win and those who do not, or that rewards weaken intrinsic
motivation (Kohn, 1993). Organizational supports negative b value is inconsistent with the
literature, suggesting that the relationship between organizational support and knowledge
sharing may be contingent on other factors, such as commitment to the organization (King
and Marks, 2008).
Trust was not a significant predictor of ones willingness to share knowledge. Additionally,
trust did not have a significant interaction effect on the relationship between knowledge
sharing and the three motivators included in the study, i.e. community related
considerations, normative considerations and personal benefits. This finding is surprising
because trust is generally associated with willingness to share knowledge (e.g. Ardichvili,
2008; Huang et al., 2008). Others have, to a certain extent, contradicted this view. For
instance, Chiu et al. (2006) found that trust did not have a significant impact on the quantity
of knowledge shared. According to Chiem (2001), most public sector employees tend to
believe that knowledge sharing leads to loss of power, resulting in their unwillingness to
share knowledge with coworkers. Additionally, if the knowledge shared is not seen as
sensitive or otherwise important, trust might not be needed for one to be willing to share it.
None of the measures of organizational structure, formalization and centralization, had a
significant effect on knowledge sharing. This particular finding may be explained by the fact
that not all public organizations are bureaucratic (Boyne, 2002). However, the findings could
differ in other types of public sector organization.
Figure 2 Results of the regression analysis
The interaction effect of social interaction and degree of courage on normative consideration
was significant, suggesting that social interaction and degree of courage moderated the
effects of norm considerations on knowledge sharing. The findings indicate that as the
interaction term normative consideration social interaction increases, the effects of norm
considerations on knowledge sharing decline. Thus, the more employees in this organization
interact with each other, the less they feel compelled to adhere to group norms. This finding
is counterintuitive. According to Knight Lapinski and Rimal (2005) special circumstances
exist, however, when collective action is detrimental to individual well-being (p. 128). Thus,
in instances where employees values and goals are not congruent with those of colleagues,
the behavior would not be aligned with group norms. Similarly, the interaction term norm
considerations degree of courage can decrease the influence of norms when individuals
do. This result could be interpreted to mean that norms in the respondents work
environments discouraged open and frank exchanges among coworkers.
Organizational support also had a moderating effect of personal benefits on knowledge
sharing. The positive beta coefficient of the product terms (PB SUP) indicates that as the
amount of support increased, so did the effect of personal benefit on knowledge sharing.
Personal benefits from knowledge sharing include the positive feelings one experiences
from feeling useful. This result suggests that such positive feelings increase in a supportive
culture. Managers in public sector organizations should recognize the importance of an
encouraging and supportive culture that could weaken barriers in their environment that
value personal technical expertise (Snowden, 2000, p. 143).
The bureaucratic nature of many government organizations, where knowledge does not
easily flow to other departments or agencies, is not conducive to knowledge sharing and
comprehensive knowledge management initiatives. Identifying factors that influence
knowledge sharing could help practitioners create a knowledge sharing culture that is
needed to support knowledge sharing and knowledge management within public sector
organizations. Managers in public sector organizations could encourage the development
of communities of practice to support knowledge sharing. Tacit knowledge is acquired by
interacting with others, and can only be shared between individuals in the same place or in
different locations if a social network exists (Yang and Chen, 2008). One way for knowledge
management practitioners to overcome this difficulty is through the use of human networks
such as communities of practice. Human networks are a key medium for sharing knowledge.
According to Snowden (1998), individuals and communities can gain greater access to
explicit knowledge and increase knowledge sharing through the creation of communities of
practice.
A comparison of the factors investigated in private and public sector organizations in recent
knowledge sharing literature suggests that the private or public nature of the organizations
may not have a significant influence on these factors, or the differences between the two are
not as pronounced as often thought (Tables VI and VII). Indeed, some of the factors
investigated so far seem to have similar effect on knowledge sharing, whether the studies
were conducted in private or public sector organizations. This implies that successful
Table VI Factors influencing knowledge sharing in private sector organizations

Chen
Chow
Kim
and
Lin
Lin
and
and
Hung
et al.
et al.
Chan
Lee
Lin
(2010) (2008) (2009) (2008) (2006) (2007)
Trust
Knowledge
networks
Social networks
Reward
Technology
infrastructure
Knowledge sharing
self-efficacy
Perceived relative
advantage
Fairness
Identification
Openness
Enjoyment in helping
others
Sharing/organization
culture
Learning orientation
Open leadership
climate
Subjective norms
Management
support
Reciprocal benefits
Motivation
Shared goals
Reciprocation
Reputation
Vision and goals
Leadership
Communication
McClure
McLure
Wasko and
Faraj
(2005)
Yu
Qian Al-Alawi
Lam and
et al.
et al.
et al.
Lambermont-Ford
(2010) (2007) (2007)
(2010)
Table VII Factors influencing knowledge sharing in public sector organizations

Friesl et al.
(2011)
Trust
Knowledge networks
Reward
IT systems
Organizational structure
Formalization
Organizational context
Social identification
Lateral coordination
Power games
Organization design
Recognition
Time
Interaction
Interpersonal skills
Leadership
Sharing culture
Willem and Buelens

(2007)
Sandhu et al.
(2011)
Seba et al.
(2012)
Syed-Ikhsan and Rowland

(2004)
Kim and Lee

(2006)
knowledge management practices used in the private sector can also be applied in the
public sector. Further research is needed to ascertain the extent of the differences between
both types of organizations, and how they affect knowledge sharing practices in these
organizations.
Conclusions and implications

This research proposed a model of some factors affecting an individuals knowledge sharing in
the context of a public sector organization. A model generated by the stepwise regression
analysis, which was statistically significant (p 0:036), explained 58 percent of the variance in
knowledge sharing (adjusted R 2 0:583). Community-related considerations were found to
be the strongest predictor to knowledge sharing in the organization of interest. Therefore,
public sector managers will need to pay particular attention to programs and activities they can
design to develop a sense of community among co-workers. Further research could establish
whether other factors such as diversity contribute to the variance in knowledge sharing.
Public sector organizations seeking to encourage or facilitate knowledge management
among their employees could encourage the formation of communities of practice. Studies
like this one can be used to create strategies to develop and sustain knowledge sharing
among employees. Although encouraging knowledge sharing might not translate into actual
use of that knowledge, public organizations can create appropriate conditions for
knowledge sharing to occur if they know which factors to influence. Prior studies have
established a link between employee engagement and lower turnover and improved
employee performance. Further research could investigate the extent to which communities
of practice can be used not only to aid with knowledge management, but also to encourage
employee engagement.
There are three limitations to the research findings. First, there are many organizational forms
operating within the public sector (Wettenhall, 2003; Willem and Buelens, 2007). Since this
study was conducted in a single public higher education institution and data were collected
from mostly lower level employees, the findings cannot be generalized to other public sector
workers. As a result, factors that influence peoples willingness to share knowledge and the
recommendations from this study may vary in different contexts. Alternatively, extending this
study using a larger sample with more balanced representation, and possibly across
different public sector organizations, will give some indication of the relevance of these
findings to other public sector workers. Second, attitudes toward knowledge sharing, and
knowledge sharing behaviors vary across national cultures. Additionally, there are a number
of subcultures within a national culture (Michailova and Hutchings, 2006). This may limit the
applicability of the findings to other countries or regions. Third, the study used self-reporting
data gathered via questionnaires. Self-reporting data may create a response bias, which
may also limit the relevance of this studys findings to other public sector employees.
References
Al-Alawi, A.I., Al-Marzooqi, N.Y. and Mohammed, Y.F. (2007), Organizational culture and knowledge
sharing: critical success factors, Journal of Knowledge Management, Vol. 11 No. 2, pp. 22-42.
Alavi, M., Kayworth, T.R. and Leidner, D.E. (2006), An empirical examination of the influence of
organizational culture on knowledge, Journal of Management Information Systems, Vol. 22 No. 3,
pp. 191-224.
Ardichvili, A. (2008), Learning and knowledge sharing in virtual communities of practice: motivators,
barriers, and enablers, Advances in Developing Human Resources, Vol. 10 No. 4, pp. 541-554.
Ardichvili, A., Page, V. and Wentling, T. (2003), Motivation and barriers to participation in online
knowledge-sharing communities of practice, Journal of Knowledge Management, Vol. 7 No. 1, pp. 64-77.
Bartol, K.M. and Srivastava, A. (2002), Encouraging knowledge sharing: the role of organizational
reward systems, Journal of Leadership and Organizational Studies, Vol. 9 No. 1, pp. 64-76.
Bock, G. and Kim, Y. (2002), Breaking the myths of rewards: an exploratory study of attitudes about
knowledge sharing, Information Resources Management Journal, Vol. 15 No. 2, pp. 14-21.
Bock, G.W., Zmud, R.W., Kim, Y.G. and Lee, J.N. (2005), Knowledge sharing: examining the roles of
extrinsic motivators, social-psychological forces, and organizational climate, MIS Quarterly, Vol. 29
No. 1, pp. 87-111.
Boyne, G.A. (2002), Public and private management: whats the difference?, Journal of Management
Studies, Vol. 39 No. 1, pp. 97-122.
Cabrera, E. and Cabrera, A. (2005), Fostering knowledge sharing through people management
practices, International Journal of Human Resource Management, Vol. 16 No. 5, pp. 720-735.
Chen, C.J. and Hung, S.W. (2010), To give or to receive? Factors influencing members knowledge
sharing and community promotion in professional virtual communities, Information & Management,
Vol. 47 No. 4, pp. 226-236.
Chiem, P.X. (2001), In the public interest: government employees also need incentives to share what
they know, Knowledge Management Magazine, August.
Chiu, C.M., Hsu, M.H. and Wang, E.T.G. (2006), Understanding knowledge sharing in virtual
communities: an integration of social capital and social cognitive theories, Decision Support Systems,
Vol. 42 No. 3, pp. 1872-1888.
Chow, W.S. and Chan, L.S. (2008), Social network, social trust and shared goals in organizational
knowledge sharing, Information & Management, Vol. 45 No. 7, pp. 458-465.
Dirks, K.T. and Ferrin, D.L. (2001), The role of trust in organizational settings, Organization Science,
Vol. 12 No. 4, pp. 450-467.
Du, R., Ai, S. and Ren, Y. (2007), Relationship between knowledge sharing and performance: a survey
in Xian, China, Expert Systems with Applications, Vol. 32 No. 1, pp. 38-46.
Felin, T. and Hesterly, W.S. (2007), The knowledge-based view, nested heterogeneity, and new value
creation: philosophical considerations on the locus of knowledge, Academy of Management Review,
Vol. 32 No. 1, pp. 195-218.
Friesl, M., Sackmann, S.A. and Kremser, S. (2011), Knowledge sharing in new organizational entities:
the impact of hierarchy, organizational context, micro-politics and suspicion, Cross Cultural
Management: An International Journal, Vol. 18 No. 1, pp. 71-86.
Garavan, T.N., Carbery, R. and Murphy, E. (2007), Managing intentionally created communities of
practice for knowledge sourcing across organizational boundaries: insights on the role of the CoP
manager, The Learning Organization: The International Journal of Knowledge and Organizational
Learning Management, Vol. 14 No. 1, pp. 34-49.
Hall, H. (2001), Social exchange for knowledge exchange, paper presented at the International
Conference on Managing Knowledge, University of Leicester, Leicester.
Hara, N. and Hew, K.F. (2007), Knowledge-sharing in an online community of healthcare
professionals, Information Technology & People, Vol. 20 No. 3, pp. 235-261.
Heffron, F. (1989), Organization Theory and Public Organizations, Prentice Hall, New York, NY.
Heppner, P.P., Kivlighan, D.M. Jr and Wampold, B.E. (2008), Research Design in Counseling, 3rd ed.,
Brooks Cole, Belmont, CA.
Huang, Q., Davison, R.M. and Gu, J. (2008), Impact of personal and cultural factors on knowledge
sharing in China, Asia Pacific Journal of Management, Vol. 25, pp. 451-471.
Inkpen, A.C. and Tsang, E.W.K. (2005), Social capital, networks, and knowledge transfer, Academy of
Management Review, Vol. 30 No. 1, pp. 146-165.
Janz, B. and Prasarnphanich, P. (2003), Understanding the antecedents of effective knowledge
management: the importance of a knowledge-centered culture, Decision Sciences, Vol. 34 No. 2,
pp. 351-384.
Kim, S. and Lee, H. (2006), The impact of organizational context and information technology on
employee knowledge-sharing capabilities, Public Administration Review, Vol. 66 No. 3, pp. 370-385.
King, W.R. and Marks, P.V. Jr (2008), Motivating knowledge sharing through a knowledge management
system, Omega, Vol. 36 No. 1, pp. 131-146.
Knight Lapinski, M. and Rimal, R.N. (2005), An explication of social norms, Communication Theory,
Vol. 15 No. 2, pp. 127-147.
Kohn, A. (1993), Why incentive plans cannot work, Harvard Business Review, September/October,
pp. 54-63.
Kwok, S.H. and Gao, S. (2005), Attitude towards knowledge-sharing behavior, Journal of Computer
Information Systems, Vol. 46 No. 2, pp. 45-51.
Lam, A. and Lambermont-Ford, J.P. (2010), Knowledge sharing in organisational contexts: a
motivation-based perspective, Journal of Knowledge Management, Vol. 14 No. 1, pp. 51-66.
Land, S.M., Draper, D.C., Ma, Z., Hsieh, H.W., Smith, B.K. and Jordan, R. (2009), An investigation of
knowledge building activities in an online community of practice at Subaru of America, Performance
Improvement Quarterly, Vol. 22 No. 3, pp. 23-36.
Levin, D., Lesser, E., Cross, R. and Abrams, L. (2002), Trust and knowledge sharing: a critical
combination, white paper, IBM Institute for Knowledge-based Organizations, Cambridge, MA.
Li, Z., Zhu, T. and Luo, F. (2010), A study on the influence of organizational climate on
knowledge-sharing behavior in IT enterprises, Journal of Computers, Vol. 5 No. 4, pp. 508-515.
Liao, L.F. (2006), A learning organization perspective on knowledge-sharing behavior and firm
innovation, Human Systems Management, Vol. 25 No. 4, pp. 227-236.
Liebowitz, J. and Chen, Y. (2003), Knowledge-sharing proficiencies: the key to knowledge
management, in Holsapple, C.W. (Ed.), Handbook on Knowledge Management 1: Knowledge
Matters, Springer-Verlag, Berlin, pp. 409-424.
Lin, H.F. (2007), Effects of extrinsic and intrinsic motivations on employee intentions to share
knowledge, Journal of Information Science, Vol. 33 No. 2, pp. 135-149.
Lin, H.F., Lee, H.S. and Wang, D.W. (2008), Evaluation of factors influencing knowledge sharing based
on a fuzzy AHP approach, Journal of Information Science, Vol. 35 No. 1, pp. 25-44.
Lin, M.J.J., Hung, S.W. and Chen, C.J. (2009), Fostering the determinants of knowledge sharing in
professional virtual communities, Computers in Human Behavior, Vol. 25 No. 4, pp. 929-939.
Lin, W.B. (2008), The effect of knowledge sharing model, Expert Systems with Applications, Vol. 34
No. 2, pp. 1508-1521.
Lindner, J.R., Murphy, T.H. and Briers, G.E. (2001), The handling of non-response errors in social
science survey, Journal of Agricultural Education, Vol. 42 No. 4, pp. 43-53.
Luen, T.W. and Al-Hawamdeh, S. (2001), Knowledge management in the public sector: principles and
practices in police work, Journal of Information Science, Vol. 27 No. 5, pp. 311-318.
McLure Wasko, M. and Faraj, S. (2005), Why should I share? Examining social capital and knowledge
contribution in electronic communities of practice, MIS Quarterly, Vol. 29 No. 1, pp. 35-57.
McNabb, D.E. (2004), Research Methods for Political Science: Quantitative and Qualitative Methods,
M.E. Sharpe, Armonk, NY.
Michailova, S. and Hutchings, K. (2006), National cultural influences on knowledge sharing:
a comparison of China and Russia, Journal of Management Studies, Vol. 43 No. 3, pp. 383-405.
Milner, E. (2000), Managing Information and Knowledge in the Public Sector, Routledge, London.
Nahapiet, J. and Ghoshal, S. (1998), Social capital, intellectual capital, and the organizational
advantage, Academy of Management Review, Vol. 23 No. 2, pp. 242-266.
Nonaka, I. (1994), A dynamic theory of organizational knowledge creation, Organization Science,
Vol. 5, pp. 14-37.
Pandey, S.K. and Wright, B.E. (2006), Connecting the dots in public management: political
environment, organizational goal ambiguity, and the public managers role ambiguity, Journal of Public
Administration Research & Theory, Vol. 16 No. 4, pp. 511-532.
Qian, H., Davison, R.M. and Gu, J. (2008), Impact of personal and cultural factors on knowledge
sharing in China, Asia Pacific Journal of Management, Vol. 25 No. 3, pp. 451-471.
Quigley, N.R., Tesluk, P.E. and Bartol, K.M. (2007), A multilevel investigation of the motivational mechanisms
underlying knowledge sharing and performance, Organization Science, Vol. 18 No. 1, pp. 71-88.
Riege, A. (2005), Three-dozen knowledge-sharing barriers managers must consider, Journal of
Knowledge Management, Vol. 9 No. 3, pp. 18-35.
Sandhu, M.S., Jain, K.K. and Ahmad, I.U.K. (2011), Knowledge sharing among public sector
employees: evidence from Malaysia, International Journal of Public Sector Management, Vol. 24 No. 3,
pp. 206-226.
Schepers, P. and van den Berg, P.T. (2007), Social factors of work-environment creativity, Journal of
Business and Psychology, Vol. 21 No. 3, pp. 407-428.
Seba, I., Rowley, J. and Delbridge, R. (2012), Knowledge sharing in the Dubai police force, Journal of
Sharratt, M. and Usoro, A. (2003), Understanding knowledge-sharing in online communities of
practice, Electronic Journal of Knowledge Management, Vol. 1 No. 2, pp. 187-196.
Silvi, R. and Cuganesan, S. (2006), Investigating the management of knowledge for competitive
advantage: a strategic cost management perspective, Journal of Intellectual Capital, Vol. 7 No. 3,
pp. 309-323.
Siong, C.C., Salleh, K., Syed Noh Syed, A. and Syed-Ikhsan, S.O.S. (2011), KM implementation in a
public sector accounting organization: an empirical investigation, Journal of Knowledge Management,
Vol. 15 No. 3, pp. 497-512.
Snow, C.C. and Thomas, J.B. (1994), Field research methods in strategic management: Contributions
to theory building and testing, Journal of Management Studies, Vol. 31 No. 4, pp. 457-480.
Snowden, D. (1998), A framework for creating a sustainable knowledge management program,
in Cortada, J.W. and Woods, J.A. (Eds), The Knowledge Management Yearbook 1999-2000, Butterworth
Heinemann, Oxford, pp. 52-64.
Snowden, D. (2000), Liberating knowledge, in Rock, S. (Ed.), Liberating Knowledge, IBM/CBI, London.
Swap, W., Leonard, D., Shields, M. and Abrams, L. (2001), Using mentoring and storytelling to transfer
knowledge in the workplace, Journal of Management Information Systems, Vol. 18 No. 1, pp. 95-114.
Syed-Ikhsan, S.O.S. and Rowland, F. (2004), Knowledge management in a public organization: a study
on the relationship between organizational elements and the performance of knowledge transfer,
Journal of Knowledge Management, Vol. 8 No. 2, pp. 95-111.
Taminiau, Y., Smit, W. and de Lange, A. (2009), Innovation in management consulting firms through
informal knowledge sharing, Journal of Knowledge Management, Vol. 13 No. 1, pp. 42-55.
Truran, W.R. (1998), Pathways for knowledge: how companies learn through people, Engineering
Management Journal, Vol. 10 No. 4, pp. 15-20.
Tsai, W. (2002), Social structure of coopetition within a multiunit organization: coordination,
competition, and intraorganizational knowledge sharing, Organization Science, Vol. 13 No. 2,
pp. 179-190.
van den Hooff, B. and de Ridder, J.A. (2004), Knowledge sharing in context: the influence of
organizational commitment, communication climate and CMC use on knowledge sharing, Journal of
Von Krogh, G., Ichijo, K. and Nonaka, I. (2000), Enabling Knowledge Creation, Oxford University Press,
Oxford and New York, NY.
Wang, S. and Noe, R.A. (2010), Knowledge sharing: a review and directions for future research,
Human Resource Management Review, Vol. 20 No. 2, pp. 115-131.
Wettenhall, R. (2003), Exploring types of public sector organizations: past exercises and current
issues, Public Organization Review, Vol. 3 No. 3, Special Issue, pp. 219-245.
Willem, A. and Buelens, M. (2007), Knowledge sharing in public sector organizations: the effect of
organizational characteristics on interdepartmental knowledge sharing, Journal of Public
Administration Research and Theory, Vol. 17 No. 4, pp. 581-606.
Willem, A. and Scarbrough, H. (2006), Social capital and political bias in knowledge sharing: an
exploratory study, Human Relations, Vol. 59 No. 10, pp. 1343-1370.
Yang, J.-T. (2007), Knowledge sharing: investigating appropriate leadership roles and collaborative
culture, Tourism Management, Vol. 28 No. 2, pp. 530-543.
Yang, S.J.H. and Chen, I.Y.L. (2008), A social network-based system for supporting interactive
collaboration in knowledge sharing over peer-to-peer network, International Journal of
Human-Computer Studies, Vol. 66 No. 1, pp. 36-50.
Yang, T.M. and Maxwell, T.A. (2012), Information-sharing in public organizations: a literature review of
interpersonal, intra-organizational and inter-organizational success factors, Government Information
Quarterly, Vol. 28, pp. 164-175.
Yu, T.K., Lu, L.C. and Liu, T.F. (2010), Exploring factors that influence knowledge sharing behavior via
weblogs, Computers in Human Behavior, Vol. 26 No. 1, pp. 32-41.
Yusof, Z.M., Bakhari, I., Kamsuriah, A. and Yusof, M.M. (2012), Knowledge sharing in the public sector
in Malaysia: a proposed holistic model, Information Development, Vol. 28 No. 1, pp. 43-54.
Zarraga, C. and Bonache, J. (2003), Assessing the team environment for knowledge sharing:
an empirical analysis, International Journal of Human Resource Management, Vol. 14 No. 7,
pp. 1227-1245.
Zboralski, K., Gemuenden, H.G. and Lettl, C. (2004), A members perspective on the success of
communities of practice: preliminary empirical results, Proceedings of the 5th European Conference on
Organizational Knowledge, Learning and Capabilities, Innsbruck.
Zboralski, K., Salomo, S. and Gemuenden, H.G. (2006), Organizational benefits of communities of
practice: a two-stage information processing model, Cybernetics and Systems: An International
Journal, Vol. 37 No. 6, pp. 533-552.
About the author

Angela Titi Amayah is an Assistant Professor of Human Resource, in the Business,
Management, and Economics area of study at SUNY Empire State College. Angela Titi
Amayah can be contacted at: Angela.TitiAmayah@esc.edu
To purchase reprints of this article please e-mail: reprints@emeraldinsight.com

Or visit our web site for further details: www.emeraldinsight.com/reprints
This article has been cited by:
1. Gangeswari Tangaraja, Roziah Mohd Rasdi, Maimunah Ismail, Bahaman Abu Samah, RoryL Chase. 2015. Fostering
knowledge sharing behaviour among public sector managers: A proposed model for the Malaysian public service. Journal of
Knowledge Management 19:1. . [Abstract] [PDF]
2. Kamal Kishore Jain, Manjit Singh Sandhu, See Kwong Goh. 2015. Organizational climate, trust and knowledge sharing:
insights from Malaysia. Journal of Asia Business Studies 9:1, 54-77. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
3. Rodrigo Valio Dominguez Gonzalez, Manoel Fernando Martins, Jose Carlos Toledo. 2014. Managing knowledge in a service
provider: a network structure-based model. Journal of Knowledge Management 18:3, 611-630. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
4. Rodrigo Valio Dominguez Gonzalez, Manoel Fernando Martins. 2014. Mapping the organizational factors that support
knowledge management in the Brazilian automotive industry. Journal of Knowledge Management 18:1, 152-176. [Abstract]
[Full Text] [PDF]

Determinants of Knowledge Sharing in A Public Sector Organization

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Determinants of Knowledge Sharing in A Public Sector Organization

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Journal of Knowledge Management

Determinants of knowledge sharing in a public sector organization

Users who downloaded this article also downloaded:

About Emerald www.emeraldinsight.com

Determinants of knowledge sharing in a

Downloaded by SEGi International Bhd At 19:15 17 January 2015 (PT)

Angela Titi Amayah is

Findings Community-related considerations, normative considerations and personal benefits were

Received 30 November 2012

In the knowledge-based economy, knowledge sharing is increasingly viewed as critical to

JOURNAL OF KNOWLEDGE MANAGEMENT

Downloaded by SEGi International Bhd At 19:15 17 January 2015 (PT)

Effective knowledge sharing is challenging because

VOL. 17 NO. 3 2013 JOURNAL OF KNOWLEDGE MANAGEMENT PAGE 455

A shared vision should therefore influence the quantity of

Knowledge sharing in public sector organizations

Downloaded by SEGi International Bhd At 19:15 17 January 2015 (PT)

motivation factors (personal benefits, community-related considerations, and normative

barriers (interpersonal, procedural, technological, cultural); and

enablers (supportive corporate culture, trust, tools).

PAGE 456 JOURNAL OF KNOWLEDGE MANAGEMENT VOL. 17 NO. 3 2013

Downloaded by SEGi International Bhd At 19:15 17 January 2015 (PT)

status and career advancement;

a better professional reputation;

emotional benefits; and

Another motivator, community-related considerations, refers to the moral obligation that

Organizational support also had a moderating effect of

VOL. 17 NO. 3 2013 JOURNAL OF KNOWLEDGE MANAGEMENT PAGE 457

Downloaded by SEGi International Bhd At 19:15 17 January 2015 (PT)

PAGE 458 JOURNAL OF KNOWLEDGE MANAGEMENT VOL. 17 NO. 3 2013

Downloaded by SEGi International Bhd At 19:15 17 January 2015 (PT)

Figure 1 The research model

VOL. 17 NO. 3 2013 JOURNAL OF KNOWLEDGE MANAGEMENT PAGE 459

motivators (personal benefits, community-related considerations, and normative

enablers (organizational culture, trust, and social capital); and

barriers (organizational climate, and organizational structure).

Downloaded by SEGi International Bhd At 19:15 17 January 2015 (PT)

Table I Source of measurement items

Knowledge sharing activities

Kim and Lee (2006)

Task information and know-how to help others and to

Chiu et al. (2006)

A knowledge contributors judgment of likely consequences

Chiu et al. (2006)

Knowledge contributors judgment of likely consequences

Levin et al. (2002)

Shared values and vision, and norms

Janz and Prasarnphanich (2003)

A measure of how well the organization recognizes

Janz and Prasarnphanich (2003)

Support is a measure of the organizations interest in the

Chiu et al. (2006)

A set of specific beliefs dealing primarily with the integrity,

Chiu et al. (2006)

Social interaction ties represent the strength of the

Chiu et al. (2006)

Actions that are contingent on rewarding reactions from

Zarraga and Bonache (2003)

An individuals ability to express his or her opinions without

Zarraga and Bonache (2003)

Feeling of freedom in individuals, leading to share knowledge

Kim and Lee (2006)

Degree to which power and authority are concentrated at the

Notes: p , 0:05; p , 0:01; p , 0:001